The Korean Alliance against
KorUS FTA (KoA) is made up of over 300 organizations, including trade
unions, farmers’ groups, NGOs, and social movement groups. Formed
on March 28, 2006, our goal is to bring awareness about the impact of
FTAs on society, under the principle that all trade agreements must
be democratic in process and respectful of both public interests and
international standards on labor, environment, health, and safety.

Executive
Summary

On February 2, 2006, South
Korea and the U.S. announced that they would begin negotiations for
a free trade agreement. However, the negotiation process and FTA content
have shown troublesome signs from the start. Many labor, agriculture,
and civil society sectors in both the U.S. and South Korea believe that,
like NAFTA, the Korea-U.S. FTA will make living conditions more difficult
for people living in both countries. This report covers seven main concerns
and presents three individual cases. Our analysis shows that the proposed
agreement will disproportionately hurt working families, widen the income
gap, limit public services, and undermine culture and the environment
in South Korea.

1. The Undemocratic Nature
of the Negotiations Process

The South Korean government’s
procedures have been inconsistent with democratic principles and Korean
law before and while negotiating the Korea-U.S. FTA. It has withheld
relevant information and documents from stakeholders, the National Assembly,
and the general public. The government has also closed off public debate
through insufficient hearings and media censorship. Furthermore it has
stifled freedom of expression through a ban on protests and arrest of
protest participants.

2. Limiting Access to Healthcare:
Pharmaceuticals

The current FTA calls for a
system that will reduce access to pharmaceuticals and place limitations
on South Korea’s healthcare system. We have three main concerns: 1)
A7 drug pricing on all innovative drugs will increase drug prices and
raise insurance costs for the public, 2) application of expensive pricing
on all innovative drugs on Korea’s positive list and installation
of an independent review board will restrict the government authority
to register and determine the price of drugs and 3) extension of patents
will burden the insurance system and limit production of generics. The
current trade deal is not in line with even the Doha Declaration on
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, which declares that the right to
a healthy life is greater than intellectual property rights. 3. The Deterioration of
Agricultural Life

The FTA requests the full opening
of the South Korea’s agricultural market to American-grown products.
This has wide social, cultural, and environmental implications: South
Korean agricultural production will decrease by 45%, meaning that roughly
half of South Korea’s farmers will lose their livelihoods. The destruction
of rural communities will result in the break-up of rural traditions
that are the basis of Korean culture, and the deterioration of the rural
environment.4. Public Services: Energy,
Water, and Education

Implementation of the Korea-U.S.
FTA will diminishthe government’s capacity to ensure equitable access
to public services. Our concern is that the FTA will decrease government
regulation on energy and water supply as a result of how its provisions
interact with the processes of liberalization already underway. Of particular
concern is the opening of South Korea’s energy maintenance industry,
which will undermine that current existing infrastructure and create
dependence of the energy industry as a whole on the private sector.
The Korea-U.S. FTA also stands to diminish the validity of public education
through the introduction of private U.S.-based testing services which
will increase the demand on students to seek private education programs. 5. Meeting International
Standards on Cultural Diversity

The Korea-U.S. FTA does not
meet international standards set by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity Cultural Expressions. The Convention
affirms the right of each member nation to formulate and implement regulations
aimed at promoting domestic cultural expression, implying the right
of members to exclude their cultural industries from international trade
agreements. We believe that the reduction of Korea’s screen quota
as a preliminary measure to the FTA and the inclusion of South Korea’s
audio-visual industry in the agreement are inconsistent with the aforementioned
provisions. 6. Meeting International
Environmental Standards

Through such mechanisms as
the investor-state claim clause, the Korea-U.S. FTA has the potential
to lower environmental standards. In fact, the investor-state claim
clause goes directly against the ‘precautionary principle’ of international
environmental law. With the current FTA, we see the possibility of a
tribunal intervention on South Korean environmental policies, particularly
concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Our position is that
economic development should meet international standards on sustainable
environment.

7. The Investor-State Claim
(ISC) Clause and the Procurement Policy

The ISC clause in free trade
agreements overburden governments and taxpayers with enormous monetary
penalty and pressure nations to adopt lower environmental and labor
standards. In order to diminish these negative consequences, South Korea
has asked for certain revisions to this clause, such as the exclusion
of claims on tax and real estate policies, but none have been accepted.
The Korea-U.S. FTA also runs against public interests by requiring a
reduction in procurement contracts. Procurement policies are necessary
to the promotion of fair, domestic economic sustainability. Table of
Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………...…1

Introduction…………………………………………………………………...….4

Part
1: Main Concerns in the Negotiations
Process and Content

1. The Undemocratic Nature
of the Negotiations Process……………………....5

2. Limiting
Access to Healthcare: Pharmaceuticals…………………………..…8

3. The
Deterioration of Agricultural Life………………………………………10

4. Public
Services: Energy, Water, and Education……………………………..13

5. Meeting
International Standards on Cultural Diversity……………………...15

6. Meeting
International Environmental Standards…………………………….17

7. The
Investor-State Claim (ISC) Clause and the Procurement Policy………..18

Part
2: Cases

Case 1:
The Life and Death of a Farmer………………………………………...20

Case 2:
Living with HIV/AIDS………………………………………………....21

Case 3:
Living with Leukemia……………………………………………….….23

Tables

Table 1.
Number of People Arrested, January 29, 2007…………………….……8

Table 2.
Price of Gleevec in South Korea and the U.S.………………...…...…....9

On February 2, 2006, South
Korea and the U.S. announced that they would begin negotiations for
a free trade agreement. From the start, however, the negotiation process
and the content of the FTA have caused great concerns in labor, agriculture,
and civil society sectors in both the U.S. and South Korea. Despite
provisions in South Korean law, which require the government to consult
the general public before pursuing an FTA, only one public hearing was
held just a day before the announcement was made. The hearing closed
shortly after beginning due to angry responses from the audience. This
event was representative of a negotiations process characterized by
lack of disclosure and curtailment of public debate, for an agreement
opposed by roughly half the South Korean population. South Korea is U.S.’s 7th
largest goods trading partner, and this FTA would be the largest U.S.
FTA since NAFTA. The South Korean government has been eager to conclude
the deal, claiming that it is the country’s best path to economic
growth. However, we believe that, as with NAFTA, the Korea-U.S. FTA
will place a heavy burden on ordinary people and increase the income
gap. We are keenly aware of NAFTA’s negative impact on the people
of Canada, Mexico and the United States despite promises that the agreement
would improve lives in all three countries. The proposed Korea-U.S.
FTA, meant to be even more comprehensive than NAFTA, can but only point
in the same direction.

This report reviews seven major
concerns within the Korea-U.S. FTA (Part 1) and presents three cases
of individuals whose lives have been injured by global trade (Part 2).
The first section covers the undemocratic nature of the negotiations
process touched on above. The second and fourth sections treat the FTA’s
negative effect on South Korea’s public services: the FTA will result
in increased prices and decreased access in the areas of healthcare,
energy and water provision, and education. The third section looks at
the social and cultural consequences of the deterioration of South Korean
rural communities due to opening of the agricultural market. The fifth
and sixth sections look at the extent to which the proposed agreement
is inconsistent with international standards for the protection of the
environment and cultural diversity. The last section treats the danger
to public interest posed by the Investor-State Claim clause and the
procurement policy. The three cases which demonstrate the FTA’s potentially
harmful effects through individual stories make up Part 2 of the report. Our analysis shows that the
proposed agreement will disproportionately hurt working and farming
families in both countries by widening the income gap, limiting public
services, and undermining international cultural and environmental standards.

Part 1:
Main Concerns in the Negotiation Process and Content

1. The Undemocratic
Nature of the Negotiations Process

Like the United States, South
Korea is proud of its democratic system, which was fought for and won
through its citizens’ efforts to overcome military dictatorship. We
are sure that members of Congress agree that all procedures followed
in negotiating the Korea-U.S. FTA should be consistent with the democratic
principles that both of our countries hold dear. Therefore, we here
share our concerns that this has not been the case since even before
the start of official negotiations.

Four Preconditions

Before the opening of negotiations,
South Korea committed to four preliminary measures as preconditions
for the talks to begin. These included 1) suspension of regulations
on pharmaceutical products, 2) easing of government regulations of gas
emissions from imported U.S. cars, 3) resumption of U.S. beef imports,
and 4) reduction of the quota which requires South Korean cinemas to
screen South Korean films from 146 to 73 days per year. The actual implementation
of each of these measures is in different stages, with the last two
currently in effect. However what concerns us here is that the government
has made a commitment to them with out public dialogue, and has reported
about them deceitfully to South Korean citizens. These preliminary measures
have an impact not only on related industries but also in the areas
of health and safety, the environment, and protection of cultural diversity.
Principles of democracy would require that stakeholders and the general
public be given adequate advance knowledge and a chance to voice concerns
before the measures were agreed to, but this was not the case. In fact,
for a long time government authorities denied the possibility that the
preliminary measures would become preconditions for negotiations. For
example, only two days before the screen quota reduction was announced,
Trade Minister Hyun-chong Kim insisted that there was no plan for such
a reduction, denying the need for further discussion with representatives
of the film industry.

Access to
Information and Public Debate

Lack of disclosure and insufficient
public debate has been a trend throughout the negotiations, inconsistent
not only with democratic spirit but also with South Korean law.
Article 12 of the Stipulations on the Procedures for Concluding a Free
Trade Agreement (Presidential Directive 121) requires a public hearing
be called before an FTA is pursued. Such hearings are meant to be forums
for discussion through which the opinions of Korean civilians are taken
into consideration.

Steps taken to meet this directive
were a pure formality: only one public hearing was called for February
2, 2006, just hours before the formal announcement was made that a Free
Trade Agreement would be pursued. Given that the decision had already
been reached, the hearing could not really have been a space for public
discussion. The report that the official announcement would be made
the following day understandably drew an angry reaction from the audience,
resulting in a suspension of the hearing. Despite South Korean chief
negotiator Jong-hoon Kim’s promise that greater effort would be made
to seek public opinion, no further hearings have been held. Rather,
the government has routinely ignored appeals from stakeholders and citizens
who have criticisms of the FTA. Compared to the U.S. government, which
has actively sought the advice of concerned groups, including industrial
associations and agricultural and labor organizations, South Korea’s
efforts are clearly lacking. In addition, the government has been reticent
in disclosing relevant information including the draft of the agreement
and the specific results of each round of negotiations. Even National
Assembly members have had very limited access: the reports they receive
are generally only as detailed as those released to the media, and the
time allowed to review these English-language documents is restricted
to the same length as that usually allocated for Korean-language materials. On top of this, a good portion
of the talks has taken place outside of the official process and removed
from public view. Of recent, the senior-level meetings held in Hawaii
without warning between the 5th and 6th official
rounds have increased Korean citizens’ distrust for the negotiations
process as a whole. Indeed, the secretive and undemocratic manner in
which the government is moving forward is one of the important reasons
behind opposition to the FTA. Needless to say, while we understand it
is not possible to make all parts of the negotiations public, it is
our position that at minimum, the government should disclose information
necessary for adequate debate on matters of public interest.

Restrictions
on Freedom of Expression

Given the lack of effective
channels for dialogue, those dissatisfied with the FTA have turned to
media work, street outreach and protests to express their opinions.
In clear disrespect of the right to freedom of expression, the government
has actively sought to quell these activities. Riot police are routinely
dispatched to restrict demonstrations, and it has been announced that
access to government subsidies will be cut off for organizations that
oppose the FTA.

The extent to which the range
of public discourse has been limited was plainly evident earlier this
year, when farmers’ and filmmakers’ organizations attempted to run
a television advertisement entitled, “A Letter from One’s Hometown”
which included images of farmers expressing their opposition to the
FTA. Upon reviewing the ad, the Korean Advertising Review Board (KARB)
stipulated that the farmers’ comments had to be erased before broadcasting,
effectively prohibiting the ad from screening. The KARB made its decision
on the basis that the comments gave a “one-sided portrayal of a dispute
involving a government agency.” Ironically, while “A Letter from
One’s Hometown” was barred, a $3.8 million advertisement made by
the President Noh’s Committee to Support the Conclusion of the Korea-U.S.
FTA, has been aired. Public sentiment for and against the FTA is roughly
split in half, but it is clear that the ad’s main statement—“the
Korea-U.S. FTA is a new opportunity for South Korea to leap into the
position of a great economic power”—does not capture the full range
of perspectives. Further, while the content of “A Letter from One’s
Hometown” is taken from the actual experiences and views of South
Korean citizens, the government’s ad contains only a narrator’s
voice against background imagery. However, as a government production,
the latter was not reviewed by the KARB and therefore not required to
meet their conditions on objectivity.

The contradiction in the two
cases has invoked criticisms from citizens groups and specialists in
the field, even those within the national Korean Broadcasting Commission,
who see the incident as an undue closure of public debate at a time
when more is needed. We echo their opinion that the event exposes a
fallacy in South Korean broadcasting law and represents a restriction
on freedom of expression inconsistent with the standards of a modern
democracy. Limits on the expression of
anti-FTA sentiment have been especially intense since November 22, when
clashes occurred between angered farmers and police during a protest.
Since then all demonstrations have been outlawed, with tens of thousands
of riot police deployed to each demonstration and checkpoints set up
on major roads leading to Seoul, to stop regional farmers and workers
from entering the capital. The police have issued summons and warrants
for over 170 people, raided the local offices of peasant and civil society
organizations, made threatening phone calls to demonstration participants,
entered their relatives’ houses seeking arrest, and detained 21 leaders
of farmers and workers organization in an attempt to stop future opposition.

Table 1. Number of
People Arrested, January 29, 2007

Under Search

Detained

8

21

The government says that these
measures are necessary as a response to the clash on November 22. We
agree that the events of that day were unfortunate, and we by no means
condone violence as a solution to social dispute. However, it is not
difficult to understand how the government’s lack of attention to
the situation of the South Korean farmers has evoked in them the frustration
which led to the conflict. Furthermore, the incident on November 22,
which was neither wide-spread nor premeditated, does not warrant the
extreme measures that have been taken in its wake. In particular, there
is simply no way to justify the continued refusal of permits for clearly
peaceful demonstrations made by groups other than the sponsors of the
November 22 protest, especially after parties involved in the incidents
of that day have already been penalized.

The excessive imprisonment
of civil society leaders and ban on peaceful protest is inconsistent
with the rights to freedom of expression and assembly enshrined in both
the South Korean and United States constitutions. This was confirmed
by the National Human Rights Commission on December 5, which called
for all possible measures to be taken to enable peaceful protests to
go forward the following day, including the withdrawal of the demonstration
ban. Yet, despite this statement, the government and police have continued
their efforts to shut down protests and silence opposition.We are gravely troubled by
the secretive and anti-democratic nature of the FTA negotiations up
to this point. We also believe that members of the Congress of a democratic
nation would not want their country to be party to such a process, and
would be highly suspicious of an agreement that was reached through
such means. We ask that you reflect on this as you consider the Korea-U.S.
FTA.

2. Limiting
Access to Healthcare: Pharmaceuticals

For both U.S. and South Korea,
healthcare is a key area of political and economic debate. After much
controversy, Massachusetts launched a comprehensive healthcare plan
in 2006, and other states such as Oregon and Ohio are pursuing a similar
system. On the whole, peoples standpoints on the healthcare issue remain
somewhat divided.

In South Korea, a universal
healthcare system (which began in 1987) provides relatively affordable
healthcare to the public. But we are still in the process of making
the system more comprehensive and efficient.

With the Korea-U.S. FTA, however,
we fear that South Korea’s healthcare system will become drastically
limited. The current FTA unfortunately calls for a system that will
seriously reduce the access to pharmaceuticals for a majority of people.
It is of grave concern to us that the current trade deal poses to restrict
South Korea’s healthcare system and may have adverse effects on the
U.S. healthcare system as well. .On November 4, 2001, the 4th
WTO Ministerial Conference at Doha adopted the “Declaration on TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health.” The Doha Declaration states that “the
TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking
measures to protect public health.” The Doha Declaration makes it
clear that on the occasion of a clash, the right to a healthy life is
greater than intellectual property rights. It sets minimum criteria
on global trade that public health must be protected from the often
irresponsible effects of economic pursuit. The current trade deal promises
to go directly against the Doha Declaration, and is contrary to U.S.’s
principle objective to respect the Doha Declaration. There are three main concerns
related to pharmaceuticals in the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations. First
is drug pricing policy. Innovative new drug prices in South Korea are
already in accordance with average factory prices in the 7 wealthiest
countries (A7 countries: U.S., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and
Switzerland). In some cases, average prices are much higher in South
Korea: for instance, the price of leukemia treatment drug Gleevec is
$23 in South Korea while $19 in the U.S. Moreover, the current FTA demands
that all patented drugs be innovative drugs and all innovative drugs
have A7 average prices. These conditions will inevitably raise the price
of medicine to an unaffordable level for the public. Our ordinary people
are still not ready to meet the drug cost of the wealthiest nations.
We are concerned that the current FTA does not fully consider the different
economic positions of people in the U.S. and South Korea.

Table 2. Price of
Gleevec in South Korea and the U.S.

South Korea

U.S.

$23

$19

A second concern is the implementation
of a positive drug list system, which contains drugs that are proven
to be efficacious, price-competitive, and covered by health insurance.

The USTR Office has partially
accepted the introduction of South Korea’s positive list policy, but
is requesting the inclusion of expensive pricing for innovative drugs
and, furthermore, the installation of an independent review board, thereby
restricting government authority to register drugs and determine its
affordable price. The independent review board is likely to be unfamiliar
with actual economic and social conditions of South Korea. We feel that
such a review board will compromise the health of a population in the
interest of corporate market access.

A third concern is the sensitive
issue of drug patents. If the trade agreement is signed, it extends
the current intellectual protection term on medicines by at least 5
years. In dollar amount, this would translate to 6 billion dollars of
financial burden to the insurance system. The stronger protection of
intellectual property would prevent fair competition of domestic generic
drug industries. Moreover, the current agreement calls for a pharmaceutical
company’s exclusive rights to drug data, on which drug companies all
over the world depend for the production of generic drugs. The percentage
of generic drugs under national insurance is increasing every year;
generic drugs, needless to say, are crucial in providing affordable
to medicine to the populations in the U.S. and South Korea. We cannot
welcome measures that prevent public access to affordable medicine. The current FTA’s demands
on South Korea’s healthcare system indicate that this trade agreement
does not uphold the public interest. It is clear that health policies
that are beneficial to the people can be challenged by pharmaceutical
companies through the investor-state claim clause. Moreover, we see
the ‘Big Deal’ process—which demands the exchange between South
Korea’s pharmaceuticals and automobiles, and U.S.’s trade remedies—as
an unjust method of conducting trade negotiations. Pharmaceuticals,
which provide an essential public service, should not be treated as
a commodity similar to automobiles. Under the current FTA, we anticipate
not only a rise in drug prices and treatment cost, but also a breakdown
in South Korea’s healthcare system itself. We believe that access
to affordable and comprehensive healthcare is a public right that must
be protected, and has priority over commercial interests. We cannot
accept a trade deal that restricts this right. 3. The Deterioration of
Agricultural Life

Along with pharmaceuticals
and automobiles, agriculture has been one of the most contentious areas
in the FTA negotiations. Since the beginning of the talks, the United
States has consistently requested full opening of the South Korean market
to American-grown products. This would require liberalization of trade
in 235 sensitive items for which South Korea seeks to maintain some
degree of protection. For Korean farmers, however, the issue at stake
is much more than a mere loss in profits; it is a matter of the very
survival of their livelihood and communities. Furthermore, the severe
weakening of Korean agriculture has wide social, culture and environmental
implications, which we believe must be taken into consideration.

While most American agriculture
is controlled by large corporations, all farming in South Korea is done
by individual farmers with small to medium-size holdings. A brief look
at statistics makes the inequity readily apparent: the total acreage
of land under cultivation in the United States is 105 times as great
as that in Korea (176 million ha to 1.7 million ha), the average farm-size
58 times greater (29ha to 0.48ha) and the average income of individual
in agricultural business four times greater ($7,200 to $1,400). Like
small farmers in the United States, South Korea’s farmers cannot compete
with large agro-business, which mass produce cheaply-priced goods with
the aid of heavy government subsidies. Due to this inequality in size
and means of production, and because American agricultural subsidies
will not be affected through the FTA, domestic agricultural products
stand to loose their markets almost completely once the FTA is implemented.

Table 3. Comparison of Agriculture
in South Korea and U.S.

South Korea

U.S.

Land under
Cultivation

1.7 Million ha

176 Million ha

Average
Farm Size

.48 ha

29.0 ha

Average
Income per Month

$1,400

$7,200

The effect is predicted to
be devastating for South Korean farmers. Take for instance, the primarily
citrus-producing population of Jeju Island: the opening of South Korea’s
fruit market to powerful companies such as Sunkist and Dole is projected
to cause a 59% drop in the price of Korean tangerines, Jeju’s primary
product, and will result in an annual loss of over $200 million dollars.
This, along with reductions in the sale of potato ($72 million), garlic
(no statistics available), fish ($5 to $10 million) and meat and dairy
($23-$28 million) makes bankruptcy almost inevitable for farmers on
Jeju. The yearly loss for South Korean agriculture nationwide is projected
to be close to $9.3 billion. This translates to an average decrease
in annual salary of nearly $8000 for farmers, the majority of whom now
only make only a little over $10,000 a year. U.S. statistics shows that
on the whole, South Korean agricultural production will decrease by
45% after the Korea-U.S. FTA has been implemented. This means that roughly
half of Korea’s farmers will loose their livelihood and have no option
but to give up their farms and join the ranks of the urban poor. It
was the prospect of a similar situation brought on by the WTO’s impact
on South Korean agriculture that prompted farmer Lee Kyung Hae to take
his own life in protest at the Cancun Ministerial in 2003, crying “WTO
kills farmers!”

Table 4. South Korea’s Projected
Annual Loss in Agriculture

Jeju Region

-$200 Million

South Korea

-$9.8 Billion

South Korea's
Decrease in Production

-45%

Decrease
in Annual Salary

-$8,000

The vitality of South Korea’s
domestic agrarian economy has significance well beyond the individual
lives of Korean farmers. Its significance is social, cultural and environmental.
Traditionally an agricultural society, Korean culture as a whole is
based on customs that have developed around the cycle of cultivation
kept alive today in farm villages. Unfortunately, the dissipation of
these communities is rapidly underway. Due to rapid industrialization,
the Korean farming population has dropped from 50% to less than 10%
over the last thirty years. This decrease has occurred more than twice
the pace of similar declines took place in the United States and Western
Europe. This process has been accelerated in the last decade as a result
of trade liberalization policies, forcing hundreds of thousands of farmers
to migrate to already overcrowded cities where underemployment is a
growing social problem. The flip-side of this over-urbanization is a
breakdown of rural ways of life and destruction of the rural environment.
In order to preserve South Korea’s countryside, local communities,
and culture, it is necessary to have measures to support agriculture
and maintain farming as a feasible occupation; the comprehensive opening
of South Korea’s agricultural market is neither wise nor necessary
at this time.

Protective measures are not
without precedent. The Swiss government, for example, has, since the
first half of the 1990s, officially recognized that the importance of
local agriculture goes beyond simple economics, to include preservation
of the countryside and long-term sustainability of natural eco-systems.
It has thus implemented a subsidy-system to protect and revitalize Swiss
farming communities, now only 4% of the population. This goal was also
one of the main reasons behind Switzerland’s decision to suspend FTA
negotiations with the United States.

We believe that the principles
embodied in the Swiss case have important meaning for South Korea, especially
now as it faces the deterioration of its rural villages and ways of
life. Thus we feel these principles should be considered in relation
to the Korea-U.S. FTA. Failure to do so will have grave negative impact
on Korea socially, culturally and environmentally.

4.
Public Services: Energy, Water, and EducationPublic services such as the
provision of energy, education and healthcare, are necessary to survival
in modern society. As such, even when these sectors are liberalized,
some measure of government involvement is necessary to assure that they
are equally available irrespective of difference in class, income and
neighborhood. We are concerned that implementation of the Korea-U.S.
FTA will harmfully diminish the government’s capacity to protect public
interest through ensuring equitable access to these vital services.
While section 2 looked at this problem in relationship to healthcare,
this section will deal with access to energy, water and education.Energy and Water

For the past decade, South
Korea has moved towards liberalization of energy supply through privatization
of energy generation and distribution, as well as the opening of gas
distribution to private corporations, increasingly relinquishing control
of these services to market forces. Water supply is also on its way
to becoming privatized through public-private partnerships. While both
the United States and South Korea have stated that the public service
sector will not be included in the Korea-U.S. FTA, our concern is that
the FTA will further decrease government regulation on energy and water
supply because of the way its provisions interact with the processes
of liberalization already underway.

The services negotiations within
the FTA follow the negative list rule, which enables the two governments
to exclude those services which they want to protect. The Korean government
has asked for the exclusion of sensitive public services such as electricity,
water, education and healthcare, which should mean that these services
will not be committed to liberalization rules. However, the problem
is that liberalization and deregulation come through other means—such
as investment clauses that enforces elimination of any kind of ‘discrimination’
against foreign investors particularly in relation to state-owned enterprises,
competition rules that outlaw state monopoly and requirement of the
reduction of government procurement contracts and the opening of this
market to foreign investment, which will effectively lead to private
control of contracted services. In short, by further relinquishing energy
and water supply to market forces, implementation of the FTA will see
the removal of government responsibility for these, as well as other
services.

Basic public services in any
country are managed through state and/or public corporations precisely
because this makes it possible to provide them in a safe, healthy and
affordable manner. Subjecting them to market and trade rules undermines
this goal. Without government regulation, the principle of supply will
become based on profit rather than on public interest. The foreseeable
result is greater inequality in access, heavier burdens on working families
due to price increases, and decreased policy space for the government. Of further concern is the request
made by the United States during the 5th round, for the opening
of the design and maintenance of public services to U.S. corporations.
South Korea has strived for the past thirty years to develop its power-plant
and energy maintenance industry, investing several hundred millions
of dollars and prioritizing it as the centerpiece of South Korea’s
energy production. Due to this support and a constant focus on public
interest, South Korea’s industry has reached world renowned levels
of operation and efficiency. This groundwork will be compromised if
the industry liberalized through the FTA. Although in the short run,
energy production costs may fall due to the introduction of already
developed products and technology, this opening of the maintenance industry
will undermine that current existing infrastructure and create dependence
of the energy industry as a whole on the private sector. With energy
production and delivery still formally in the public sector and development
and maintenance in the private sector, confusion and irrationality are
likely to ensue. Maintenance systems and related technology will be
updated frequently, and active plants relocated, in keeping with profitability.
The resulting instability will mean an increased burden on the South
Korean public.

Education

In the early years of its founding,
South Korea sought to provide equal access to elementary, middle and
high-school education through the implementation of extensive public
school legislation, revolutionizing an education system traditionally
based on social hierarchy. However, like other public services, South
Korean education has been increasingly subjected to privatization in
the last decade. The introduction of wide-spread private after-school
and tutoring programs geared towards college admissions has created
a growing inequality in access to higher education between students
from families who can afford these services and those who cannot. This,
in turn, has widened the discrepancy in job opportunity based on income
and education level, completing a vicious cycle, which is helping to
solidify the gap between rich and poor.

The Korea-U.S. FTA stands to
exacerbate this situation by further diminishing the validity of public
education. If the FTA is implemented it will mean the introduction of
private American-base testing services to the South Korean admissions
processes. This can only but increase the demand on students to seek
extra-curricular courses from private programs, deepening unequal access
to higher education by greatly disadvantaging students from low-income
families who cannot pay for these programs. U.S.-based testing and associated
curricula may also drive more students who can afford it to seek education
abroad rather than in South Korea. The FTA will also open university
and adult education to private corporations. The collective result of
these measures will be an overall devaluation of public education, ultimately
undermining the system as a whole and the right to equal education which
it represents.

By leading to the reduction
of government regulation over gas and water supply and the weakening
of public education, the Korea-U.S. FTA stands to exacerbate current
trends in South Korea which are placing increased burdens on low and
middle-class families and widening the gap between rich and poor. Checking
these trends requires greater, not less regulation and protection of
public services, measures sincerely needed at this point in time. We
hope that Congress members will respect this need as you consider the
Korea-U.S. FTA.

5. Meeting International
Standards on Cultural Diversity

On 20 October 2005, the UNESCO
General Conference adopted the Convention on the Protection and Promotion
of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, with 148 countries, including
South Korea in support, two in opposition and four abstentions. The
main objective of this agreement, which goes into effect on March 18,
2007, is to create, amidst the challenges presented by an increasingly
interconnected world, an international environment in which all cultural
expression is affirmed, given a chance to thrive and made accessible
to all for the benefit of humanity.

The convention defines cultural
diversity as, “the manifold ways in which the cultures of groups and
societies find expression… made manifest not only through the varied
ways in which cultural heritage and humanity is expressed… but also
through diverse modes of artistic creation, production, dissemination,
distribution and enjoyment,” and recognizes that “cultural diversity,
flourishing within a framework of democracy, tolerance, social justice
and mutual respect between peoples and cultures, is indispensable for
peace and security at the local, national and international levels.”
Further, it states that, “since culture is one of the mainsprings
of development, the cultural aspects of development are as important
as its economic aspects… (and) protection, promotion and maintenance
of cultural diversity are essential requirements for sustainable development
for the benefit of present and future generations.We believe the Convention marks
an important milestone in international law by recognizing cultural
diversity as the collective heritage of humanity and setting common
rules and guidelines for its protection at a global level. Further,
its principles are of particular significance to South Korea, a country
which has, by necessity, struggled to revive its national culture after
years of colonization in the beginning of the 20th century.
In particular, the Convention affirms the right of each member nation
to formulate and implement cultural policy and protects their rights
to enforce regulations aimed at promoting domestic cultural activities,
goods and services, implying the right of members to exclude their cultural
industries from international trade agreements. We are concerned that
the Korea-U.S. FTA is inconsistent with these international standards. Firstly, we feel the negotiation
process itself has been inconsistent with Convention principles widely
upheld in the international community. We believe that the Convention,
by affirming the distinction between ordinary commodities and those
with cultural value and requiring that other international agreements
be harmonized with protections for cultural diversity, implies the right
of members to exclude their cultural industries from international trade
agreements. This has, in fact, been the practice in many free trade
negotiations, including those conducted between Canada and Israel, Canada
and Chile, Canada and Costa Rica, the EU and Chile, the EU and Mexico
and Australia and Singapore. The cultural industry was also exempted
from the U.S.’s FTA negotiations with Canada in 1989, and in the negotiation
of NAFTA. We, therefore, cannot but see a failure to exempt the cultural
industry in the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations as a step backwards in adherence
to international standards.

Even if we do not admit the
full exclusion of the cultural industry from international agreements,
the Convention clearly protects the right of nations to implement policy
for the protection of their domestic cultural activities, goods and
services. We believe the compulsory reduction of South Korea’s screen
quota as a precondition to FTA talks is inconsistent with this right
and harmful to the development of Korean cultural expression. The screen
quota, which requires theaters to show Korean films for a certain number
of days per year, was introduced in 1966 as a means to assist the development
of South Korea’s nascent film industry. While, thanks to the quota
and other supportive measures, South Korean film can now claim notable
advancement, its progress, and South Korea’s film-culture with it,
are likely to be damaged by a weakening of these protections. Other
sectors of the cultural industry, particularly broadcasting, face the
removal of similar protections with the implementation of the FTA. This
will endanger the public function of the broadcasting industry and the
uniqueness of South Korea’s audio-video language. While we are in
full support of cross-cultural exchange between Korea and the U.S. (and
other countries) in the case that it promotes mutual innovation and
development, we fear that the provisions of the Korea-U.S. FTA represent
an infringement on the independent development of Korea’s audio-video
industry that would compromise it as distinctive form of national cultural
expression. It is impossible to deny the
important contribution the diversity of its people makes to the richness
of American society. We trust that members of Congress are aware of
and support the promotion of multi-culturalism within the Untied States
and the free expression of cultures in all their variety internationally.
We appeal to these sentiments in asking Congress to pay due attention
to the points of concern laid out above, and to make a commitment to
the protection of cultural diversity as it considers the Korea-U.S.
FTA.

6. Meeting International
Environmental Standards

One area of concern that crosses
all sectors in South Korea is the environment. Through such mechanisms
as the investor-state claim clause, the current model of free trade
has the grave potential to lower the environmental standards of signatory
countries. As seen in the NAFTA case, national and provincial environmental
laws can be challenged under investor rights rules. In fact, the investor-state
claim clause goes directly against the ‘precautionary principle’
of international environmental law. The free trade agreement between
the U.S. and South Korea thus undermines the growing environmental concerns
faced by the international community, for example, the search for alternative
fuel in the face of global warming. In South Korea, decades of
economic development brought with them a vast number of environmental
problems related to industrialization and urbanization. Recently, a
great effort has been carried out in order to meet the international
environmental standards of developed nations. (South Korea signed the
Kyoto Protocol in 1998 and ratified it in 2002.) Our position is that
economic development should meet international standards set to achieve
a sustainable environment, but we fear that with the passing of the
Korea-U.S. FTA, the public’s environmental interest will be overlooked
and the environments in both countries will likely deteriorate. In December
2006, the USTR Office released the Interim Environmental Review, stating
that harmful environmental effects in both countries due to the Korea-U.S.
FTA will be small. This is a limited view, because through such mechanism
as the investor-state claim clause, environmental policies in both nations
can be adjusted by a foreign tribunal.

In particular, an environmental
issue that generates much debate is food safety in relation to genetically
modified organisms (GMOs). Potential negative effects of GMOs on the
environment, according to GMO-Free Europe, include gene mutation with
harmful effects, interaction with native populations, and impact on
birds, insects, and soil biota. In the Swiss-U.S. FTA negotiations,
the difficulty of allowing GMOs into Switzerland became a crucial factor
that led to the suspension of talks. In South Korea, GMO labeling is
a requirement, but the U.S. is currently reluctant to make labeling
mandatory for U.S. products. With the current FTA, we see the unfortunate
possibility of a tribunal intervention on environmental policies under
the investor-state claim clause. We know that many provisions related
to GMOs come into conflict with market access, but the global community
should move toward measures that can guarantee agricultural and food
safety appropriate for different environments.

We are aware that the environment
is an important issue in the U.S. Congress. The current trade model
pursued by USTR, however, undermines its importance. We ask the members
of the U.S. Congress to re-evaluate this trade agreement, under the
principle that any trade agreement between democratic and developed
nations can no longer ignore environmental issues in conjunction with
the creation of a healthy market. We believe that the public has the
right to a safe and clean environment and the food produced from it.
We cannot agree with a trade agreement that hinders the environmental
sustainability of signatory nations, as the current FTA is poised to
do.7. The Investor-State Claim
(ISC) Clause and the Procurement Policy

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement

As one of the most intensely
debated issues in current free trade negotiations, the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) rules are meant to only provide a protection of rights and
privileges to foreign investors. However, in most cases, especially
in relation to NAFTA, the investor-state claim clause has shown an unbalanced
effect on signatory governments: ISDS overburden governments and taxpayers
with enormous monetary penalties and pressure nations to adopt lower
environmental and labor standards in order to prevent further claims.
The undemocratic and closed character of tribunals, to which domestic
courts have little say, further undermines the fairness of trade agreements.
In almost all cases, foreign investors hold greater privileges than
those defined by domestic law, including the U.S. Constitution. At the 3rd round
of Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations, the South Korean government requested
that the provision of expropriation be excluded from international tribunals,
but this request was denied. At the 5th round of talks, a
minimal request of excluding claims on tax and real estate policies
was made, but this request is unlikely to be met. Recently, South Korea’s
real estate market has seen highly vulnerable speculations and an uncontrolled
rise in price. The housing speculation crisis is a national issue, and
the real estate market is now undergoing policy changes that should
make it more stable and safe. The request to exclude real estate policies
from ISDS reflects the South Korean government’s effort to make housing
more accessible, affordable, and environmentally conscious. Under the
ISDS clause, however, investors can challenge such policies, inevitably
restricting protective social measures set by the government on behalf
of public interest.

The negative financial impact
of ISDS and international tribunals is large. Since the passing of NAFTA,
42 claims have been filed against the U.S., Canada, and Mexico in the
amount of $28 billion, of which $35 million has already been claimed
from the governments of Canada and Mexico. The U.S.-Australia FTA did
not include the kind of ISC and tribunal mechanism proposed for the
Korea-U.S. FTA. This demonstrates that the two governments see the problematic
and unfair nature of the ISDS clause. Our assessment is that, first,
the privilege given to investors and tribunals under the ISDS clause
is outside the boundary of the South Korean and U.S. constitutions and
therefore undemocratic in nature; second, the ISC clause and tribunals
put enormous pressure on both governments to lower public standards
in order to prevent future claims; and third, large claims against governments
inevitably burden taxpayers and constrain their ability to participate
in a healthy market.

We believe that a fair and
just trade deal must reflect public interests and respect domestic policies
that uphold public standards. The ISDS clause, as one of the most problematic
parts of the Korea-U.S. FTA, makes the entire trade framework unacceptable
for the people in both countries.

The Procurement Policy

For any democratic government,
procurement policy is a necessity for the promotion of domestic economic
development. In the U.S., procurement policy helps to prevent the offshoring
of state jobs, promotes locally made products, prohibits products made
by compromising human rights and labor standards, and gives preference
for recycled content, renewable energy, and alternative fuel. However,
procurement provisions have come under restraint by bilateral trade
agreements as will NAFTA and CAFTA. Normally, procurement provisions
are set by federal and state legislatures, but under bilateral trade
agreements, they are determined by foreign tribunal rulings, which oblige
the federal government to force state and local government compliance. In South Korea, procurement
policy promotes the growth of thousands of small businesses in various
regions, providing entrepreneurial opportunities to businesses that
are conscious about environmental and labor issues. Such a policy, in
turn, keeps public interest alive and maintains community-government
cooperation. With the Korea-U.S. FTA, however, the USTR is requesting
that procurement contracts be reduced from $25 million a year to $8
million a year. Furthermore, although procurement policy regarding electricity
and gas were originally exempted from the FTA negotiations, the USTR
has been demanding their inclusion since the 5th round of
talks.

Procurement policies, both
governments need to recognize, are an important mechanism through which
governments protect public rights. We believe that decisions regarding
procurement belong to the U.S. and South Korean legislatures and not
to a tribunal that can easily dismiss environmental, labor, and human
rights issues. The governments of both countries have a responsibility
to promote sustainable economic development while resolving these issues.
Therefore we believe that a free trade agreement that jeopardizes procurement
measures is not only undemocratic for undermines nations’ legislative
systems, but also a disservice to the hard-working people of both countries.

Part II:
Cases

Case 1:
The Life and Death of a Farmer

On September 10,
2003, the opening day of the Fifth WTO Ministerial in Cancun,
a South Korean farmer, Lee Kyung Hae, climbed the fence which surrounded
the negotiations site and plunged a knife into his heart in protest
against the indiscriminant opening of Korea’s agriculture market.
Below is an excerpt from a letter he wrote before he took his life. I am a 56-year old Korean farmer.
As a young man, after graduating from an agricultural college, I worked
with my own hands to turn rough mountainous lands into a small dairy
farm. While working on my farm, I also cultivated rice in fields in
the valley below, which I had inherited from my father. This is how
I lived—by farming. While doing this precious work I came together
with others like me to found an organization through which we could
contribute to our local community and our country. After the WTO, our worst fears
were realized as cheap imported products flooded our agricultural markets.
We knew that no matter how hard we worked we could not match the prices
of these imports. We also came to feel how very small we are: our farms
(average size 1.3ha) are not even as big as 1/100 the size of those
in large exporting countries. As cheap agricultural imports poured in
all around us, my friends and I switched from growing one crop to another,
trying to survive in the cracks between them. But, of course, there
were those who got tired of living in these cracks and gave up farming
altogether. After the Uruguay Rounds and
South Korea’s agricultural structural readjustment, it is true that
there were some individual cases of farmers whose productivity increased.
However, you must understand that it was also then that overproduced
agricultural products flooded our markets at the lowest prices ever.
Because of this there were times when the price of our goods would suddenly
plunge to just 1/4 of their normal price. Think about it: if your salary
was suddenly cut in half without you knowing why, how would you feel? Those who gave up early went
to the city only to fall into urban poverty, and those who fought until
the end trying to break this vicious cycle were thrown into bankruptcy
by unimaginable debt. Of course, among them, those with good luck have
been able to go on a bit longer, but we can only wonder how long it
will be before they too meet a similar fate. As for me, I could not help
but stay up at night looking around the faded and empty homes of friends
who left, wishing for their return. Once I rushed to the house of a
man who, despairing at his uncontrollable debt, took his own life by
drinking a toxic chemical; I could do nothing but listen to the sound
of his wife weeping. Today if you go to farming
villages in Korea you will come across worn-out vacant houses and old
people with bent backs and walking canes. The only way you can experience
what was once called the “beauty of Korea’s countryside” is in
a car flying by on the highway. In fact, those highways are attracting
large buildings, apartments and factories. This land was once rice fields
made by our ancestors and cultivated for hundreds of years; in the past
it gave forth our daily food. In the modern society of today the healthy
land and water maintained by our fields are even more important. Is
there anyone who will protect our farmland, our traditional culture,
our beautify scenery and our environment?

Case 2:
Living with HIV/AIDS

My name is Han-ki Yoon, and
I found out that I have AIDS nine years ago. Currently in South Korea,
there are 13 kinds of AIDS treatment drugs, most of them developed in
the 1990s. Theses drugs are covered by the national health insurance
at no cost to the patient. However, since AIDS was first discovered
in South Korea 20 years ago, the number of patients who have developed
a resistance to these drugs is growing. I myself have developed a resistance
to all 13 drugs. Since 2000, the FDA has approved 12 types of AIDS treatments,
but only 3 are permitted to be sold in South Korea, with only 2 types
actually on the market. The pharmaceutical company Roche has a permit
to sell Fuzeon in South Korea but refuses to sell the drug, demanding
a price that is in accordance with the price in the U.S. and Europe,
which is $20,000 a year for one patient. Was not the high cost of Fuzeon
also a problem in the U.S.? Furthermore, the cost for South Korea’s
insurance system and government is increasing because all AIDS treatment
drugs in Korea, except for one, are original drugs with patents.I am now face to face with
death as I wait for new AIDS treatments to be sold in South Korea. People
living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA) all over the world suffer from prejudice
and discrimination. Similarly, PLHA in Korea have difficulty holding
a job. People like me, whose bodies are already weak, do not have an
income because we cannot do manual labor. I am 40 years old, but my
savings are less than a thousand dollars. It is impossible for me to
pay $20,000 a year for Fuzeon. Only a few people in South Korea can
pay $20,000 a year for any kind of treatment. Fortunately, I asked the
organization AID for AIDS for help, and I am now able to get Fuzeon.
However, I still need to buy the expensive drug Aptivus, made by Boehringer
Ingelheim, for my drug cocktail. Treatment for various infections is
also very expensive. Currently, I receive a treatment for cytomegalovirus
(CMV), which costs $2000 a month. I cannot pay for this on my own, so
I get help from my friends, but I don’t know how long I can keep this
up. While waiting for new drugs, I lost sight in one eye, and it has
become difficult to walk. I now live in a center for people with AIDS,
the only option I have if I want to survive.

I know that drug inaccessibility
is a problem for many. Since 2004, I have been active in the organization
called Solidarity for HIV/AIDS Human Rights of Korea (NANURI+). I am
its chairperson. When we heard early last year that the negotiations
for Korea-U.S. FTA would begin, we were extremely worried. When South
Korea’s Ministry of Health and Welfare announced a drug pricing policy
(which would stabilize drug prices) in May 2006, the multinational group,
Korean Research-based Pharmaceutical Industry Association (KRPIA), held
a press conference opposing the drug pricing policy, which I attended.
They said that they oppose the policy in order to protect patients’
access to new drugs, and that if the drug pricing policy is not repealed,
all investment would be withdrawn. I know better than anyone that KRPIA’s
notion of ‘access to new drugs’ is only possible when we pay their
high price. They demand a high drug price without good reason. I asked
them, “I’m an AIDS patient; why is Roche trying to sell Fuzeon at
such a high price?” It was not easy for me to reveal to the media
that I am an AIDS patient, but I wanted to ask if it makes sense to
them that I have to face death because drug prices are too expensive.
They did not answer. Their ‘access to new drugs’ was only a lie.Wendy Cutler stopped the 2nd
round of Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations with the same reasoning as KRPIA.
And the USTR formally accepted South Korea’s drug pricing policy but
has demand 16 items; these 16 items would make the drug pricing policy
an empty shell. At the moment, South Korea’s pharmaceuticals are about
to be negotiated with U.S.’s trade remedies in a high-level ‘Big
Deal’ meeting. Does it make sense that the lives of patients are exchanged
in the hands of negotiators? If we look at U.S. FTAs with Chile, Singapore,
Australia, and Central America, they contain clauses about extending
patents and exclusive rights and restricting compulsory licensing and
generic drugs. Also, the investor-state claim clause in included. The
Korea-U.S. FTA will result in a rapid rise in drug and treatment costs,
and the state will be susceptible to lawsuits whenever a policy benefiting
patients is implemented.

Last August, I attended the
International AIDS Conference. My friends tried to stop me from going
because of my poor health, but I had to do something about the FTA and
the abuse caused by pharmaceutical companies. I talked to people living
with HIV/AIDS from Thailand, Malaysia, the Dominican Republic, the U.S.,
France, and South Africa. We held a rally opposing FTAs, which only
benefit pharmaceutical companies, while shouting, “Life Over Profit!”
It is unthinkable what would happen to Thailand’s 700,000 people living
with HIV if the Thai-U.S. FTA is passed. Last November, the Thai government
implemented compulsory licensing on AIDS drugs. Thailand’s national
pharmaceutical company is able to distribute the AIDS treatment Efavirenz
at 1/30th of the cost of Bristol-Myers Squibb. Moreover,
in last August, after a long struggle, Thailand’s people living with
HIV/AIDS persuaded GlaxoSmithKline to give up its patent on Combid.
I was very happy to hear such news, but I am very worried that everything
would become worthless if the Thai-FTA is passed.All over the world 8000 people
die of HIV/AIDS each day because of patents and expensive drugs. For
people living with HIV/AIDS, FTAs are a death sentence. I have a clear
reason to oppose the Korea-U.S. FTA. The FTA will take away the chance
for AIDS patients like me to receive treatment and will contribute to
the spreading of AIDS. The FTA shall bring disaster upon the people
living with HIV/AIDS all over the world.

Case 3: Living with LeukemiaI am Jung-ha Kim, the older
sister of the deceased Jung-gyu Kim. My brother, who suffered from Leukemia,
passed away on October 12, 2006.

My brother was diagnosed with
Leukemia in August 2005. He was initially treated with the Leukemia
drug Gleevec, but his body began to reject the treatment after only
6 months. He then tried to participate in the clinical trial for Tasigna,
a new drug produced by Novartis Pharmaceutical, but was excluded from
the study due to side effects. In the face of these two failures, a
new drug called SPRYCEL that combats resistance to Gleevec became my
brother’s last hope. SPRYCEL was developed by the U.S.-based transnational
pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb and received FDA approval
on June 28, 2006.Sadly, the clinical trail for
SPRYCEL was already completed, and a month’s dose costs about $4500.
My brother simply did not have the means to pay for the medicine so,
instead, he left for a rest-center in the mountains where he could prepare
to die.

At the rest-center, my brother’s
pain became very intense. Because it was not possible to get anesthesia
or a blood transfusion there, we eventually sent him back to a college
hospital where he began anti-cancer treatment. Thankfully, he took a
turn for the better, but $4500 a month for the proper medicine was simply
impossible for us to manage. So my brother had no choice but to wait
for the day when the Korea Food and Drug Administration would approve
SPRYCEL for its free provision program. Before that could happen, he
relapsed. He started the anti-cancer treatment again, but it was not
sufficient. My brother died on October 12 last year. Five years ago the “wonder
drug” Gleevec shook the world of Leukemia suffers. Like a miracle
from Heaven, it promised five more years of life to over 90% of all
patients. However there is still the 10% whose bodies reject the
treatment and continue to deteriorate. For this 10% the drug SPRYCEL
is equal to life. This is because SPRYCEL has been proven to extend
the lives of over 80% of the patients who develop resistances to Gleevec. Anyone can get a terminal disease.
Even the healthy die of disease in their old age. If you become ill
you must take medicine, and you must pay the price of that medicine.
You have to keep paying until you recover completely or until you die.Today about 2,000 Leukemia
patients in Korea are taking Gleevec, which costs the National Health
Insurance Corporation over $31 million a year. In addition, the number
of patients is increasing by over 200 people each year, so each year
the drug expense goes up over $7.5 million. In 2013, the year the patent
expires, the National Health Insurance Company will have to pay more
than $85.7 million for Gleevec to treat 3,400 Leukemia patients. At first there was only Gleevec.
Now-a-days there are more than ten “miracle drugs” including Gleevec,
Velcade, and Temodal approved for national healthcare coverage at high
prices and many other expensive drugs like Tasigna and SPRYCEL that
are currently being clinically tested or waiting to be approved. The problem, not just with
Gleevec, but with most miracle drugs, is that they do not provide complete
cures, but rather only extend your life. And, for them to be effective,
you have to take them everyday for the rest of your life until you die.
The standard is that if you are a patient waiting for death, these drugs
give you the gift of life and health, but in exchange, you have to pay
exorbitant fees for the rest of you life. The National Health Care Corporation
also has to put out huge amounts of money.If the Korea-U.S. FTA is concluded
it will mean the strengthening of patents and drug prices with skyrocket.
The consequent depletion of funds for public healthcare will mean the
destruction of the national health insurance system. In Korea, which currently provides
universal healthcare for its people, protecting patients’ access to
medicines is the basic premise of insurance. However, if, due to skyrocketing
drug prices, the fund for public health insurance is drained, even drugs
that are indispensable for the treatment of people like my brother will
not be approved for coverage or will lose their approval. It will then
become inevitable that some patients die because they don’t have money
even though medicines that could treat them exist.I believe we should not see
pharmaceuticals as merely commodities. In reality they should be seen
as public goods because they are directly related to people’s lives
and health. Therefore, they should not be included in free trade agreements. Drugs which could cure you,
but which you cannot take unless you have a lot of money are not really
life-giving medicines. Rather, they are poisons that kill you two times
over. This was the case with my brother. Please, I fervently pray that
you will not make this historic mistake called the FTA, which will bring
this sad misfortune to patients like my brother and all Korean people.